A criminal is someone who has committed a crime. If this person tells himself he's not a criminal, he's wrong.
A homosexual is someone who prefers the same sex to the opposite sex. If this person tells himself he's not homosexual, he's wrong.

I'm not sure how you can keep stating an illogical definition for the word "homosexual", especially when you just put the logical definition for criminal next to it. Almost every term we give to someone is based upon actions they have taken. We call a criminal a criminal because they have taken criminal action. We don't call them a criminal for wanting to take criminal action, or being attracted to criminal action, or desiring to be a criminal. That would be ridiculous. Yet you expect to call someone homosexual for those same reasons, which is equally ridiculous.

A homosexual is someone who chooses to have romantic and/or sexual encounters with someone of the same sex. If that person tells themselves they are not homosexual because they actually want to have romantic and/or sexual encounters with someone of the opposite sex, they're wrong.

Again, if your reasoning is "you are what you say you are", then I'm a billionaire because I say so. When the pile of money falls on my head to make that happen, then your argument will make sense. Until then, you've got nothing.

So you're saying that there is no logical reason why someone would be in a relationship with someone of a gender that doesn't attract them?

No. I'm saying there would be no "wish to be straight" in the first place. If you want to be straight, then choose to be with people of the opposite gender. It's that simple. Unless someone is forcing you to choose who you are with (in which case that should be reported to police), then there's no reason to say anyone would ever have to "wish to be straight".

A criminal is someone who has committed a crime. If this person tells himself he's not a criminal, he's wrong.
A homosexual is someone who prefers the same sex to the opposite sex. If this person tells himself he's not homosexual, he's wrong.

I'm not sure how you can keep stating an illogical definition for the word "homosexual", especially when you just put the logical definition for criminal next to it. Almost every term we give to someone is based upon actions they have taken. We call a criminal a criminal because they have taken criminal action. We don't call them a criminal for wanting to take criminal action, or being attracted to criminal action, or desiring to be a criminal. That would be ridiculous. Yet you expect to call someone homosexual for those same reasons, which is equally ridiculous.

A homosexual is someone who chooses to have romantic and/or sexual encounters with someone of the same sex. If that person tells themselves they are not homosexual because they actually want to have romantic and/or sexual encounters with someone of the opposite sex, they're wrong.

Again, if your reasoning is "you are what you say you are", then I'm a billionaire because I say so. When the pile of money falls on my head to make that happen, then your argument will make sense. Until then, you've got nothing.

So you're saying that there is no logical reason why someone would be in a relationship with someone of a gender that doesn't attract them?

No. I'm saying there would be no "wish to be straight" in the first place. If you want to be straight, then choose to be with people of the opposite gender. It's that simple. Unless someone is forcing you to choose who you are with (in which case that should be reported to police), then there's no reason to say anyone would ever have to "wish to be straight".

I know gay people that wish they were straight. Being gay has caused a lot of problems in their lives. But they are gay and there is nothing they can do to change that fact.

Anyone could choose to be celibate, that's not the point. They are attracted the same sex. Asking them to just choose to be with the opposite sex is as reasonable as asking you to have sex with men. You could do it, just like you could hit yourself on the head with a hammer, but you wouldn't be happy with that choice.

Anyone can make ANY sexual choice they want at any time (although some may be unwise or illegal).

They are attracted the same sex. Asking them to just choose to be with the opposite sex is as reasonable as asking you to have sex with men.

No one is "asking" anyone to do anything.

But if someone wants to be with people of the opposite sex, there is nothing stopping them but their own choices.

You could do it, just like you could hit yourself on the head with a hammer, but you wouldn't be happy with that choice.

The hammer analogy was shown not to work a long time ago.

As for the rest of what you say here, not all choices are happy ones or result in happy endings. That's part of life. But to suggest that someone doesn't have a choice simply because one of the options they could choose might make them less than 100 percent happy is ridiculous. It's still an option, and it's still a choice they have to make. You can't say it's not just because they don't like one of the options.